Today's Political Moment #2: War and Terrorism

EVENT

I've had a number of thoughts bubbling up and out for awhile, and the best opportunity to test them was actually last week, when I got into a rich discussion/argument with the unlikely combination of my brother, parents, aunt, grandma, and two family friends. I think this richness had to do with the continuum not of political philosophy but attitude, ranging from bile and vinegar to sugary optimism. But most of all, the question of agreement or disagreement seemed to be besides the point (while we were agreeing and disagreeing)... the emphasis just seemed to be on understanding something better.

Of course, the topic was terrorism, the Iraq war, and whatnot. Here's my take, and I would be delighted if this bloomed into an actual discussion, although I wouldn't immediately blame someone who thought that this conversation has been conversed to death, at least in the conventional ways.



1. One person argued that Islam is an inherently and objectively more violent religion; that the manner, degree, and extent of violence perpetrated by Muslims has roots in the doctrines and traditions of their religion.

I disagree. I have read the Qu'ran, the Hadiths, and the Bible. Comparing the two main documents, both contain moments when acts of violence are divinely condoned as well as explicit exhortations to behave with neighborly pacifism. Dogmatically, there is nothing tying Islam to violence more than Christianity.

This point can be broadened. Of all world religions, Buddhism emphasizes peaceful conduct most directly and continuously, yet Buddhists have been involved in acts of violence just as severe as other major religions. Moreover, sectarian violence seems to be just as rife as interfaith conflict, as demonstrated in Iraq today and a decade ago in the former Yugoslavia.

And, of course, Christianity has a history at least as bloody (certainly numerically speaking) as any other faith.

My point isn't to condemn any particular faith, but the most compelling evidence suggests to me that when there is a strong incentive to violence, religious arguments tend to be sidelined altogether, unless they can be used to justify violence. It's a clear case of selective interpretation and prooftexting.



2. It has also occured to me, with regard to suicide attacks, that it is not the suicide we find so repellant but the targeting of civilians.

Self-sacrifice is, for the most part, regarded as admirable. I don't have to rigorously defend this because there is evidence everywhere; the Purple Heart is one of the most respected awards one can receive in our military, those who lose their lives in the line of duty are routinely elevated to "hero" status, and in films from Braveheart and Apocalypse Now to Casablanca, the climax occurs in an instance of self-sacrifice.

On the other hand, most of us have a somewhat close knowledge of the holocaust and at least a vague awareness of the genocide of the Native Americans; the emphasis in these histories is that genocide was perpetrated on those who 1) were unable to defend themselves and 2) in many cases did not seek out conflict.

Hence, when we deplore terrorism, to the extent that we can look beyond racist or religious prejudice, it is not the self-sacrifice or even the radical vigilantism of terrorism we object to, but the fact that the toll is executed upon civilians.

I think this is a healthy vantage point; I agree that any "just war" (neglecting any messes there for the moment) might be best viewed as a social extension of "self defense." At the same time, I think that the U.S. specifically and the western world in general have been conveniently hypocritical. Unless the highest priority in any war objective is protecting civilian population, the credibility of the war is sacrificed. It is useful to keep in mind that there the primary difference between collateral damage and an act of terrorism is not a question of life or death at all, but of political fallout.



3. The other face of #2, however, is that terrorism is murder. Moreover, if we must be more careful in protecting civilian life, such considerations need not apply to armed antagonists at war with us.

In other words, I'm not a pacifist.



4. #3 does not mean, however, that civil rights ought to be compromised.

Inostensibly, we are at war (any war) to preserve our civil, sane society. If just war is an extension of self-defence, than civil rights are the domestic extension of the same principle; war is a state's obligation to preserve its people from hostile action abroad, and civil rights are a state's obligation to protect its people from discriminatory internal elements.

Compromising civil rights to win a war is essentially the same as neglecting foreign civilian safety; it undermines the credibility of the action.



5. #4 seems to take a hard line, though, which I don't want to do. Sometimes, a limited compromise might be necessary if it is rigorously discussed and analyzed and strenuously monitored.

Abraham Lincoln is known to have suspended habeas corput during the Civil War. I don't know the pressing need in that instance, but I would stop at saying that there is no legitimate case to be made of a suspension of some civil liberties.

In the present case, however, with a cowed media, a secretive executive branch riddled with contradictory policy and all branches of government dominated by political ideology supported by a scarce half of the nation (if that), I don't see any evidence of rigorous discussion or monitoring.

The burden of proof or need and extent should fall upon those who would curtail liberties.



6. To return, briefly, to the large situation, the War on Terror, for the record I was part of the 12% that did not think Bush was doing a good job in the days after September 11th. That said, I cautiously agreed with the suggestion that the War on Terror should be a "new kind" of war.

As described, however, I believed that war would take a very different form than it has. It would be single minded in its pursuit of one objective (eliminating terrorism). Since it would need to operate in many quarters, particularly in developing and politically unstable nations, the effort would work hard for international consensus and support. An emphasis on intelligence would allow for a highly selective determination of targets based on the most comprehensive threats, and most importantly, an emphasis on international civilian rights and outreach would diminish the attraction of terrorism to potential recruits.

But that's not the war we got, is it?

Instead, we are fighting a highly conventional war of troops and tanks for a multitude of (mostly unacknowledged) political and economic reasons based on uncertain evidence in a part of the world where the multivalence of our actions energizes the base that terrorists draw from. This war has isolated the U.S. from the international community as well as marginalized our allies in the Middle East and encouraged militant factions. At home, we have compromised our own civil liberties under very dubious arguments and sacrificed the credibility of our efforts.



7. To address conservatives, there is certainly no point in "lying back and taking it." But anyone who persists in denying these very fundamental objections to American foreign policy (stated by those wiser than me) is either failing to closely consider the policies themselves or truly, in the real sense of the word, "living with a pre-9/11 mindset."

We can't shoot all the bad guys, this is the world we live in, and we have to deal with it.

Economic expansion does not mix with cultural isolation.

Bush's war is, in fact, no different from any other war ever waged.

END OF POST.